Categories

Archive for June, 2010

I’ve said for many years those who hate gun control laws should fear politicians less and courts more. So believing, a lot of armed folks of my acquaintance have accused me of being one slice of bread short of a sandwich.

But this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling (McDonald v. Chicago 08.1521) is exactly what I’ve been talking about. This time a local handgun ordinance was overturned. Next time, it could be validated. Thanks to five Justices, there will be a next time. Many of ‘em. The door is wide open.

Gun control is a court issue, not a political one. Politicians would sooner vote to end Social Security than touch the third-rail politics of gun control. Still, my email inbox keeps getting those specious anti-Obama messages created out of whole cloth by paranoids for reasons that escape me.

We have two guns at our house. Both unloaded. One I inherited. One I bought years ago when I received what police called “credible threats” during my TV days. Neither has been fired in so long there’s probably a small life form raising a family in one of the cylinders.

I’m not anti-gun. I’m anti-people killing with guns.

As a native Westerner, I’ve taken more than a passing interest in gun law issues over the years and it’s my belief those who fear politicians messing with their arsenals don’t understand the politics or the civic processes involved.

In the SCOTUS decision, justices said local governments retain flexibility to preserve “reasonable” gun control measures which includes some now on the books. If you want to know why there are so many lawyers, consider that word “reasonable.” That’s why new, experimental gun laws are more likely to come through the justice system than the political one. And my bet is local jurisdictions by the dozens will be bringing their laws/ordinances to courts for a test. They’ll try to find one that passes muster and then … Katy bar the door!

The Chicago case started with an individual wanting a handgun to protect his family. Streets outside his home were killing fields, ruled by which gang could kill more than the others. “All I want,” he said, “is a fighting chance to at least make somebody think before coming into my house.” His handgun application was denied by the city.

It’s worth noting nothing in this decision prevents local governments from putting strong local laws on the books for handgun or other firearm restrictions. In fact, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said “It cannot be doubted the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner.” The emphasis there is mine to point out this decision is not nearly the huge victory the paid zealots in the NRA front office would have us believe.

So, we’re back to the word “reasonable” or in Alito’s view “evenhanded.”

As a gun owner … but not a gun fanatic … I’m not concerned the City of Roseburg or the County of Douglas or even the State of Oregon will create gun restrictions I can’t live with. Too many reasoned heads will have something to say about crafting any future laws if such laws are necessary.

What does concern me is the continuing barrage of fear-mongering and outright lies that hit my electronic inbox on this subject. To give some of the creators the benefit of the doubt, they’re honestly clueless about how laws are made, the process of hearings, the realities of one-party dominance in a legislature or congress and the sausage-like birthing of anything that winds up before a mayor, a governor or a president for signature. They hear via the grapevine that some individual has written an obscure bill that may never see daylight outside his /her office and begin sounding alarms. Or creating false alarms.

If these folks would spend as much time and energy learning more about how their democracy works and less time creating imaginary foes, they’d have less to worry about. And we would have a much better educated voter pool. Which would mean more people making wiser decisions on election day. Which would result in a better species of politician. How about that for improving things?

SCOTUS … maybe inadvertently … opened the door for gun law testing. And testing there’ll be. Ready on the firing line!

Now, for those who think I’m anti-gun or some liberal nut case on the subject, read this again. And don’t bother … you should excuse the expression … firing off a nasty email. My spam filter shoots on sight.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on SCOTUS gun ruling has opened a very large door

Henceforth, when referring to the cataclysmic amount of oil wreaking long-term ruin on our shores of the Gulf of Mexico, stop … repeat … STOP referring to the event as a “spill.”

“Spill” is a word you use when someone knocks over your glass of milk. Or when tea sloshes out of the cup and stains your pants. “Spill” is the apt description when the stack of oranges at the grocery store suddenly rolls to the floor.

The proper term for what’s happening in the Gulf is “blowout.” If what is happening a mile below the water’s surface were on dry land, there would be a plume of oil rising into the air to shower everything around it. If you went to the movies in about 1946, you’d see Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable being drenched in falling oil from their new gusher in Oklahoma. Blowout.

“Spill” trivializes the destruction we are witnessing; destruction caused more by human greed and avarice, regulatory failure and unnecessary risk than any geologic action. Aside from being technically the wrong word in the first place, it fails to capture the event it is meant to describe; the holocaust of crude that is changing a good part of the American experience forever.

There is no apt use for the word “spill” in connection with this story.

Because a significant number of veterans live in our Northwest neighborhood, I’m sure there’ve been many coffee shop discussions… not to mention bar arguments … about the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. With a significant portion of my own life in the military, I’ve followed it myself.

Though it’s sad to see a fine career end being relieved of command, there wasn’t much else the President could’ve done. Having pushed the discipline envelope too far on previous occasions, McChrystal was already on thin ice. While his senior staff seemed to be the source of much of the recent criticism of the administration and its war policy, the General was apparently a willing accomplice. Booze or no booze.

President Obama had other options to deal with the situation but he took the one that was bedrock solid. Up until the moment a military policy decision was made, McChrystal and other participants in the discussion were free to disagree, criticize or make a different argument. Flip charts, PowerPoint. Whatever.

But when a final order is given, the only acceptable response is clear. You stand straight, click your heels, render a sharp salute and say “Yes, Sir” in a firm voice. You may agree. You may disagree. But at that moment, unless required to do something illegal, you’ve got your orders. Discussion over. I’ve not attended West Point but I’m pretty sure obedience and discipline are introduced to plebes in the first 15 minutes. Maybe sooner.

My own military years were spent taking more orders than giving them. Because I’m a strong-willed individual, I know well the feelings of following commands I didn’t like. But I followed them. Anyone with an honorable discharge did, too. That’s the only way it works.

Unless you sit in the Oval Office, everyone in uniform … everyone … has someone sitting on a rung just above them. General or private, everyone answers to someone. Despite that questionable child-rearing advice, it’s not necessary to tell the person below you the “big picture” or how their following orders will advance the overall mission and make them feel good. Gen. Eisenhower didn’t stand in an English rain in June, 1944, telling each G.I. where they fit in the D-Day landing. And why.

McChrystal seems to share some similarities with another general: George Patton. Both were West Point. Both ascended the military ladder rapidly with battlefield promotions and shared the “right-place-at-the-right-time” fortune often leading to early command. They appeared to see the world in black and white with little use for shadings of gray in decision-making. Each was military to the core. Except.

Except each was outspoken; a flaw that tripped up both men. Outspokenness is not a character trait sought in military recruitment. Even the guy who ends up with five stars on his lapel is not free to publically criticize either his orders or the political system from which they come. Might be O.K. over a glass of brandy or a shot or two of JD with a trusted friend. But, in uniform and on duty, you carry out each order to the last period on each sentence.

The President had another option I favored. He could’ve told McChrystal to put his resignation in writing, seal the envelope and hand it over. The President could then put it on the corner of his desk, telling the general it would stay there unless there was a whiff of anything but absolute loyalty. At that point, McChrystal could finally accept the discipline he should’ve learned on his first day in uniform or he could’ve ended his career more honorably and stepped down. His choice.

McChrystal was not wrong to have his own strong feelings about the war or to express them to his closest staff. But I sense something else here.

Knowing he had a journalist embedded with his closest advisers and, getting to know the guy publically and privately over a four week period, I can’t believe someone as savvy as McChrystal would let his guard down so completely. My reporter gut tells me he saw an opportunity … using his own words and his staff … to say some things he hoped would change the direction of policy in Afghanistan. Maybe the President would listen.

Just a guess. But Rolling Stone? McChrystal’s career might have ended better if he’d used the Wall Street Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on There may be a part of the McChrystal story we’re missing

One of the greatest complaints about government … city hall to Washington DC … is we’re at the mercy of “vested” or “special interests” influencing politicians. Sometimes, that’s a legitimate complaint. But it really isn’t the real reason for our unhappiness with government. That has it’s roots in another often-heard criticism: “too much money in politics.”

The most recent bad “special interest” evidence comes in the oil disaster in the Gulf; how BP … among others … influenced government workers who were supposed to be inspectors and watchdogs; how BP … among others … compromised safety and environmental protections. “Special interests?” Certainly. Did they do wrong? It appears so.

Remember those “vested interest” complaints arising during the fracas over our new health care law. Insurance companies were made out to be really bad guys. And many were. Oh, let’s not forget Wall Street. All very “vested interests.”

Now, consider. Suppose your mayor and some city council members go to Salem or Washington DC., meeting with legislators or congressmen to get support/money for a new bridge and a highway. They take charts, graphs, reams of documents and really press the case. “Vested interests?” “Special interests? Yep! Only this time, they’re doing our business to make things better for us.

Say next week, your county commissioners go to Washington to see USFS and BLM decision-makers. They want increased timber cuts, more local involvement in timber management decisions and action to get rid of diseased forests. Doing the good works we elected them to do. “Vested interests?” You bet! Again, on our behalf.

As citizens … corporate or individual … we have the guaranteed right to try to move political people this way and that. They don’t always have the familiarity with all our needs that we do so they rely on us to tell them. It’s been that way for centuries.

The oft-repeated claim “vested interests are running government” isn’t entirely true. Even if it were, it’s not always a bad thing.

But … too much money? It’s nearly impossible to make an argument for more dollars for politicians. The only people seemingly wanting to dispute that make up a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

A recent SCOTUS decision says, in sum, the right of free speech for corporations, unions and other entities is the same as individuals, appearing to run counter to many settled cases on the subject. Some legal puritan … an oxymoron … may argue on strict legal grounds the Court is being consistent. Not to me. My response is the Court has broken new ground flying in the face of many other decisions.

For a Court whose members … especially conservatives … have repeatedly said they wouldn’t be “activist” judges, making new law from the bench, that seems to be what they did.

Say General Motors, Ford and the other car companies want to gut the timetable for making more efficient, less-polluting cars. How many dollars could they throw in the pot … all in the name of the corporate/individual right of free speech? Millions? Hundreds of millions? And you and me? Well, I’m good for twenty bucks. How ‘bout you? And what about our rights of “free speech” if we want those laws maintained?

Not all corporations will sit out there waiting to take advantage of this legal travesty. Many of them will use their “speech right” to work for better things. But long, old history tells us there are those that’ll take this opening to new heights of abuse.

I speak from experience. As former president of a large trade association, I typed the checks and handed out dollars approved by the Political Action Committee. Decisions of whom to support or ignore were often made on grounds of self service rather than which candidate was ethical, intelligent or deserving of support. It was a task I hated.

Sent to Washington to lobby Congress, I was often “invited” to a “reception” for Congressman So-And-So. It made no difference if I didn’t show up as long as the check did; usually a thousand was the minimally accepted level. Some days there would be three of these.

Still, I don’t get worked up when people talk of “vested interests.” We “citizen interests” can get our shot.

But evidence money adversely affects and overwhelms the interests of we, the citizens, is indisputable. Doubt on the subject is nonexistent. Unless you are a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Sometimes a court decision can be criminal

In recent days I’ve been asked why I haven’t done a column on British Petroleum and the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

Several reasons. Ridenbaugh Press is basically a Northwest blog so I try to discipline my wandering journalistic mind to issues of the neighborhood.

Additionally, professionals of every stripe are up to their waders in oil and it’s aftermath. Geologists, biologists, engineers, fishermen, crabbers, Coast Guard, Navy, meteorologists, veterinarians, etc. Pretty much the entire spectrum of people who can offer help from every conceivable profession.

Also, the oil story has been written and photographed by about every communications outlet in the world; some devoting vast coverage which it certainly warrants. Media professionals, using the latest technology, have portrayed every possible angle. So I assume you’re getting the facts. Not much left for a lone voice in Douglas County.

Still, there is one angle … entirely local … I can’t find anywhere . One extremely local portion of the worldwide story not reported. And that’s the overwhelming sense of helplessness and terrible loss filling my head each day. Yours, too, I’d guess. That’s local. The sense that, for once, we’re at the absolute mercy of the physics of our earth with no technological answer.

We’ve seen hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, hail storms. Even world wars. They come, they storm, they flood, they destroy, they kill. They end. We begin again.

But this … this damned hole in the earth … this seemingly endless black poison that eventually kills nearly every living thing it touches … this petroleum plague is, so far, beyond any human power to control, divert or capture. It confounds our most skilled professionals with their computerized whizbang solutions to nearly everything. It defeats technology. It scorns our feeble attempts to “put a cork in it.” It threatens to continue until the massive pool and extreme gaseous pressures it is under exhaust themselves, heedless of the hourly mass destruction it’s dealing us which will likely last for centuries.

Here’s something to keep in mind. BP would not have fronted the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to reach that oil if research had not shown the amount to be large … very large … and worth the cost to get it. The equipment and technology required cost so much the company had to be very certain there was enough oil there to recapture the costs and reap the billions of dollars for which it is famous.

None of that bodes well for us and our ecological world. We are at the absolute mercy of unknown forces we can’t control. Our children’s children and their children will live with the lasting damages we’re only beginning to experience. Land portions of our nation are disappearing. The pace of that vanishing act will only be quickened by the oil as grasses holding the soil are killed and the naked land washes out to sea. Hurricanes will be even more destructive because we’re losing the natural elements that have slowed their speeds.

Is BP to blame? Damned right! Are state and federal agencies culpable? Damned right! Democrats and Republicans and their appointees? Damned right! A special pox on politicians throwing around asinine charges and doing their always useless finger pointing. We don’t have time for … or need of … them.

The Gulf story is local to Roseburg and Wenatchee and Albany and Walla Walla. We may not see the oil or taste it or smell it. But it is stealing our land as certainly as it is wiping out seamen, fishermen, their crafts and their heritage in and around the Gulf. Their irreplaceable losses are losses for the nation. We’re the poorer for their suffering. Our anger … while never as heartfelt as theirs … should be directed at those who would rape, ruin and run. Our condemnation for those who would expose this continent to the ravages we are seeing without the technology to undo what they have begun should be tireless.

Never … never … have I felt so at the mercy of forces that can’t be controlled, diminished, diverted or overcome. With man’s inept interference, we are witnessing the unchecked power of nature and the terrible damages it can cause. It makes one feel absolutely … powerless.

That’s why I haven’t done a column on the Gulf oil disaster.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on For all its world scope, the Gulf story really matters … locally

There seems to be more of a political silly season going on across the country at the moment than we’ve seen in recent years. We’ve got our share of it in the Northwest, especially in small communities. That’s this overused, usually misguided and often failed attempt at recalling someone in elected office who is deemed to be “unfit to serve” for various “reasons.”

If you’ve spent much of your life in and around politics, you’ve seen the recall tactic tried against everyone from governors to an occasional county coroner. Some are successful; more often not.

Those behind the efforts, no matter how well-intentioned and honest they may be, should be advised of some political truisms before printing the first petition. One is that recalls are very seldom successful; about one in seven nationally. Even with extreme dissatisfaction with some officeholder, those aren’t good odds.

Additionally, people are dragged into your fight who wouldn’t otherwise oppose you. They’ve been quiet, sitting on the sidelines, feeling the complainants are probably wrong, are just bitching and don’t stand a chance. So they don’t get involved. Until the petitions start flying.

Another major reason not to try: if a recall fails … as most do … targets(s) of the drive usually gain support; more hardcore support among folks who live in the community who voted against you. In many cases, the winners feel stronger than before. A failed recall drive can give the victors encouragement they are on course and feel vindicated in whatever actions stirred things up.

Also, potential petitioners should look carefully at laws governing recalls. Nearly all specify particulars dealing with criminal convictions, malfeasance in office, immoral activity bringing shame or disgrace to the office and other similar, provable specifics. Nowhere in the laws of any state will you find reasons that include arrogance, ignorance, won’t listen, too tall, too short, difficult personality, bad grammar or poor personal hygiene.

My reading about … and listening to … leaders of many of these drives seem more to be the latter issues and less the former.

While some public servant(s) may offend the community sensibilities of a few, may be arrogant or uncommunicative, poor public relations seldom warrant recall. Nothing illegal there. May not be the most astute political course of action for someone in elective office. It’s a fact most people who are eventually voted out of some public job can usually blame bad communications. The most successful elective officials are approachable, good listeners and develop a way of making you think your opinion is important.

Another bad fallout of recalls, especially in the smaller communities, can be the interrelationship of people on both sides. Because there are so few residents, they keep bumping into each other at church, service clubs, the PTA or family reunions. Often there are marriages or other family issues that get involved. Divisions occur where they weren’t intended.

If those who really feel aggrieved are sincere and not just people with their noses out of joint, they should look among themselves and come up with a legitimate candidate or two they can support. Then do so.

It’s true “a day is a lifetime in politics.” But it’s also true if you do your homework, find and educate your candidates, raise the funds, build your grassroots base and craft your issues, the distance between elections isn’t nearly long enough. If you do it right!

Across our country right now, we’re seeing results of people unhappy with how government is operating. Nothing wrong with that. Except, when angry, we don’t make our best decisions. We don’t do our homework. We tend to overreact with bad decisions of our own. In some places, there are people being elected who advocate things that are illegal, impossible and/or poorly conceived; positions which will keep them from being effective in any meaningful manner which will result in voters who put them there being unrepresented. Dr. Rand Paul comes quickly to mind.

Recalls are serious political remedies. Like any medicine, they should be used sparingly, with great caution and only when absolutely necessary. The temperature in the body politic doesn’t often legitimately rise to the point to warrant the recall “cure.”

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Angry recalls can be two-edged swords cutting both ways

One of the most repeated complaints about government … city hall to Washington DC … is we’re at the mercy of “vested interests” influencing politicians. Sometimes, that’s a legitimate complaint. But it’s not really the real reason for our unhappiness with government. That has it’s roots in another often-heard criticism: “too much money in politics.”

The most recent bad “vested interest” evidence comes in the oil disaster in the Gulf; how BP … among others … influenced government workers who were supposed to be inspectors and watchdogs; how BP … among others … compromised safety and environmental protections. “Vested interests?” Certainly. Did they do wrong? It appears so.

Remember those “vested interest” complaints arising during the fracas over our new health care law. Insurance companies were made out to be really bad guys. And many were. Oh, let’s not forget Wall Street. All very “vested interests.”

Now, consider. Suppose your mayor and some city council members go to Salem, Olympia, Boise or Washington DC., meeting with legislators or congressmen to get support/money for a new bridge and a highway. They take charts, graphs, reams of documents and really press the case. “Vested interests.” Only this time, they’re doing our business to make things better for us.

Say next week, your county commissioners go to Washington to see USFS and BLM decision-makers. They want increased timber cuts, more local involvement in timber management decisions and action to get rid of diseased forests. Doing the good works we elected them to do. “Vested interests.” Again, on our behalf.

As citizens … corporate or individual … we have the guaranteed right to try to move political people this way and that. They don’t always have the familiarity with all our needs that we do so they rely on us to tell them. It’s been that way since 1776.

The oft-repeated claim “vested interests are running government” probably isn’t entirely true. Even if it were, it’s not always a bad thing.

But … too much money? It’s nearly impossible to make an argument for more dollars for politicians. The only people seemingly wanting to dispute that make up a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

A recent SCOTUS decision says, in sum, the right of free speech for corporations, unions and other entities is the same as individuals, appearing to run counter to many settled cases on the subject. Some legal puritan … an oxymoron … may argue on strict legal grounds the Court is being consistent. Not to me. My response is the Court has broken new ground flying in the face of other decisions.

For a Court whose members … especially conservatives … have repeatedly said they wouldn’t be “activist” judges, making new law from the bench, that seems to be what they did.

Say General Motors, Ford and the other companies want to gut the timetable for making more efficient, less-polluting cars. How many dollars could they throw in the pot … all in the name of corporate/individual right of free speech? Millions? Hundreds of millions? And you and me? Well, I’m good for twenty bucks. How ‘bout you? And what about our rights of “free speech” if we want those laws maintained?

Not all corporations will sit out there waiting to take advantage of this legal travesty. Many of them will use their speech “right” to work for better things. But long, old history tells us there are those that’ll take this opening to new heights of abuse.

I speak from experience. As former president of a large trade association, I typed the checks handing out dollars approved by the Political Action Committee. Decisions of whom to support or ignore were often made on grounds of self service rather than which candidate was ethical, intelligent or deserving of support. It was a task I hated.

Sent to Washington to lobby Congress, I was often “invited” to a “reception” for Congressman So-And-So. It made no difference if I didn’t show up as long as the check did; usually a thousand was the minimally accepted level. Some days there’d be three of these.

So I don’t get worked up when people talk of “vested interests.” We citizen “interests” can get our shot.

But evidence money adversely affects and overwhelms the interests of we, the citizens, is indisputable. Doubt on the subject is nonexistent. Unless you are a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Sometimes a court decision can be criminal